The United States is battered and drifting after eight years of President Bush’s failed leadership. He is saddling his successor with two wars, a scarred global image and a government systematically stripped of its ability to protect and help its citizens — whether they are fleeing a hurricane’s floodwaters, searching for affordable health care or struggling to hold on to their homes, jobs, savings and pensions in the midst of a financial crisis that was foretold and preventable.
As tough as the times are, the selection of a new president is easy. After nearly two years of a grueling and ugly campaign, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois has proved that he is the right choice to be the 44th president of the United States.
•
Mr. Obama has met challenge after challenge, growing as a leader and putting real flesh on his early promises of hope and change. He has shown a cool head and sound judgment. We believe he has the will and the ability to forge the broad political consensus that is essential to finding solutions to this nation’s problems.
In the same time, Senator John McCain of Arizona has retreated farther and farther to the fringe of American politics, running a campaign on partisan division, class warfare and even hints of racism. His policies and worldview are mired in the past. His choice of a running mate so evidently unfit for the office was a final act of opportunism and bad judgment that eclipsed the accomplishments of 26 years in Congress.
Given the particularly ugly nature of Mr. McCain’s campaign, the urge to choose on the basis of raw emotion is strong. But there is a greater value in looking closely at the facts of life in America today and at the prescriptions the candidates offer. The differences are profound.
Mr. McCain offers more of the Republican every-man-for-himself ideology, now lying in shards on Wall Street and in Americans’ bank accounts. Mr. Obama has another vision of government’s role and responsibilities.
In his convention speech in Denver, Mr. Obama said, “Government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves: protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools and new roads and new science and technology.”
Since the financial crisis, he has correctly identified the abject failure of government regulation that has brought the markets to the brink of collapse.
The Economy
The American financial system is the victim of decades of Republican deregulatory and anti-tax policies. Those ideas have been proved wrong at an unfathomable price, but Mr. McCain — a self-proclaimed “foot soldier in the Reagan revolution” — is still a believer.
Mr. Obama sees that far-reaching reforms will be needed to protect Americans and American business.
Mr. McCain talks about reform a lot, but his vision is pinched. His answer to any economic question is to eliminate pork-barrel spending — about $18 billion in a $3 trillion budget — cut taxes and wait for unfettered markets to solve the problem.
Mr. Obama is clear that the nation’s tax structure must be changed to make it fairer. That means the well-off Americans who have benefited disproportionately from Mr. Bush’s tax cuts will have to pay some more. Working Americans, who have seen their standard of living fall and their children’s options narrow, will benefit. Mr. Obama wants to raise the minimum wage and tie it to inflation, restore a climate in which workers are able to organize unions if they wish and expand educational opportunities.
Mr. McCain, who once opposed President Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy as fiscally irresponsible, now wants to make them permanent. And while he talks about keeping taxes low for everyone, his proposed cuts would overwhelmingly benefit the top 1 percent of Americans while digging the country into a deeper fiscal hole.
National Security
The American military — its people and equipment — is dangerously overstretched. Mr. Bush has neglected the necessary war in Afghanistan, which now threatens to spiral into defeat. The unnecessary and staggeringly costly war in Iraq must be ended as quickly and responsibly as possible.
While Iraq’s leaders insist on a swift drawdown of American troops and a deadline for the end of the occupation, Mr. McCain is still talking about some ill-defined “victory.” As a result, he has offered no real plan for extracting American troops and limiting any further damage to Iraq and its neighbors.
Mr. Obama was an early and thoughtful opponent of the war in Iraq, and he has presented a military and diplomatic plan for withdrawing American forces. Mr. Obama also has correctly warned that until the Pentagon starts pulling troops out of Iraq, there will not be enough troops to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
Mr. McCain, like Mr. Bush, has only belatedly focused on Afghanistan’s dangerous unraveling and the threat that neighboring Pakistan may quickly follow.
Mr. Obama would have a learning curve on foreign affairs, but he has already showed sounder judgment than his opponent on these critical issues. His choice of Senator Joseph Biden — who has deep foreign-policy expertise — as his running mate is another sign of that sound judgment. Mr. McCain’s long interest in foreign policy and the many dangers this country now faces make his choice of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska more irresponsible.
Both presidential candidates talk about strengthening alliances in Europe and Asia, including NATO, and strongly support Israel. Both candidates talk about repairing America’s image in the world. But it seems clear to us that Mr. Obama is far more likely to do that — and not just because the first black president would present a new American face to the world.
Mr. Obama wants to reform the United Nations, while Mr. McCain wants to create a new entity, the League of Democracies — a move that would incite even fiercer anti-American furies around the world.
Unfortunately, Mr. McCain, like Mr. Bush, sees the world as divided into friends (like Georgia) and adversaries (like Russia). He proposed kicking Russia out of the Group of 8 industrialized nations even before the invasion of Georgia. We have no sympathy for Moscow’s bullying, but we also have no desire to replay the cold war. The United States must find a way to constrain the Russians’ worst impulses, while preserving the ability to work with them on arms control and other vital initiatives.
Both candidates talk tough on terrorism, and neither has ruled out military action to end Iran’s nuclear weapons program. But Mr. Obama has called for a serious effort to try to wean Tehran from its nuclear ambitions with more credible diplomatic overtures and tougher sanctions. Mr. McCain’s willingness to joke about bombing Iran was frightening.
The Constitution and the Rule of Law
Under Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the justice system and the separation of powers have come under relentless attack. Mr. Bush chose to exploit the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001, the moment in which he looked like the president of a unified nation, to try to place himself above the law.
Mr. Bush has arrogated the power to imprison men without charges and browbeat Congress into granting an unfettered authority to spy on Americans. He has created untold numbers of “black” programs, including secret prisons and outsourced torture. The president has issued hundreds, if not thousands, of secret orders. We fear it will take years of forensic research to discover how many basic rights have been violated.
Both candidates have renounced torture and are committed to closing the prison camp in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
But Mr. Obama has gone beyond that, promising to identify and correct Mr. Bush’s attacks on the democratic system. Mr. McCain has been silent on the subject.
Mr. McCain improved protections for detainees. But then he helped the White House push through the appalling Military Commissions Act of 2006, which denied detainees the right to a hearing in a real court and put Washington in conflict with the Geneva Conventions, greatly increasing the risk to American troops.
The next president will have the chance to appoint one or more justices to a Supreme Court that is on the brink of being dominated by a radical right wing. Mr. Obama may appoint less liberal judges than some of his followers might like, but Mr. McCain is certain to pick rigid ideologues. He has said he would never appoint a judge who believes in women’s reproductive rights.
The Candidates
It will be an enormous challenge just to get the nation back to where it was before Mr. Bush, to begin to mend its image in the world and to restore its self-confidence and its self-respect. Doing all of that, and leading America forward, will require strength of will, character and intellect, sober judgment and a cool, steady hand.
Mr. Obama has those qualities in abundance. Watching him being tested in the campaign has long since erased the reservations that led us to endorse Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Democratic primaries. He has drawn in legions of new voters with powerful messages of hope and possibility and calls for shared sacrifice and social responsibility.
Mr. McCain, whom we chose as the best Republican nominee in the primaries, has spent the last coins of his reputation for principle and sound judgment to placate the limitless demands and narrow vision of the far-right wing. His righteous fury at being driven out of the 2000 primaries on a racist tide aimed at his adopted daughter has been replaced by a zealous embrace of those same win-at-all-costs tactics and tacticians.
He surrendered his standing as an independent thinker in his rush to embrace Mr. Bush’s misbegotten tax policies and to abandon his leadership position on climate change and immigration reform.
Mr. McCain could have seized the high ground on energy and the environment. Earlier in his career, he offered the first plausible bill to control America’s emissions of greenhouse gases. Now his positions are a caricature of that record: think Ms. Palin leading chants of “drill, baby, drill.”
Mr. Obama has endorsed some offshore drilling, but as part of a comprehensive strategy including big investments in new, clean technologies.
Mr. Obama has withstood some of the toughest campaign attacks ever mounted against a candidate. He’s been called un-American and accused of hiding a secret Islamic faith. The Republicans have linked him to domestic terrorists and questioned his wife’s love of her country. Ms. Palin has also questioned millions of Americans’ patriotism, calling Republican-leaning states “pro-America.”
This politics of fear, division and character assassination helped Mr. Bush drive Mr. McCain from the 2000 Republican primaries and defeat Senator John Kerry in 2004. It has been the dominant theme of his failed presidency.
The nation’s problems are simply too grave to be reduced to slashing “robo-calls” and negative ads. This country needs sensible leadership, compassionate leadership, honest leadership and strong leadership. Barack Obama has shown that he has all of those qualities.
Today the U.S.Supreme Court ruled against the Ohio GOP which attempted to hijack Ohio's election by removing more than 200,000 newly registered voters from the voter rolls.
Hats off to the Ohio Supervisor of Elections who took the case all the way to the Supreme Court
YES WE CAN!
Gordon
Obama challenges Palin on earmarksGOP running mate has said one thing but done another, Democrat says in IndianaBy Francesca Jaroszfrancesca.jarosz@indystar.com
TERRE HAUTE, Ind. -- Sen. Barack Obama on Saturday launched his first attack on GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin during his first appearance in Indiana since the Democratic National Convention.
Palin portrays herself as being against earmarks, but she has taken them "when it's convenient," the Democratic presidential nominee said. Earmarks are funding tucked into spending legislation in Congress by lawmakers for their districts.
"When you've been taking all these earmarks when it's convenient, and then suddenly you're the champion anti-earmark person, that's not change," Obama said of Palin, the Republican governor of Alaska.
Palin initially supported earmarks for a controversial Alaska project called the "bridge to nowhere" but dropped her support after the state's likely share of the cost rose.
The Illinois senator made the references to Palin while focusing his talk in a 4-H barn at the Wabash Valley Fairgrounds on GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain of Arizona.
He said McCain presents himself as the candidate for change while embracing many of President Bush's policies.
Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., introduced Obama to the crowd of about 1,000 and made a similar complaint about McCain.
"The price that John McCain had to pay to win his party's nomination was to embrace Bush's agenda," Bayh said. "And that's a price that the American people can no longer afford."
Bayh's comments brought cheers from the crowd in this city in Vigo County. Bayh is a native of the county.
"They talk about McCain being a maverick," said Jennifer Nelson, 40, Terre Haute, a pharmaceutical production technician. "I'd rather have someone who is built of character and the fabric of the future."
Obama said McCain's policies, particularly on the Iraq war and the economy, were a continuance of the Bush administration. McCain has voted with Bush 90 percent of the time in Congress, Obama added.
"And suddenly he is the change agent," the nominee said. "Change is not continuing the same tax policies as George Bush -- giving tax breaks to companies that invest overseas."
Obama pledged to create 7 million jobs in the United States by investing in green technology and infrastructure. He also promised to "use the tax code in a smarter way" by giving tax breaks to companies that invest inside the nation and offering tax cuts for 95 percent of taxpayers.
He said he would improve education, with a focus on producing engineers and scientists who could compete with students in China, India and other countries.
Many of those in the audience, who included flood victims displaced from their homes, people struggling to get by on disability payments and parents worried about their college-age children getting jobs, seemed encouraged by Obama's message.
"I hope the economy gets better than what it is," said Bettie Davis, Terre Haute, who at 87 still works to supplement her Social Security income, yet must choose between paying rent and buying medicine. "We need to stop sending money overseas when people here could be using it."
On Monday, Tim Roemer, Obama's senior foreign policy adviser and a former Indiana congressman, will lead discussions in Indianapolis, Franklin and New Albany on Obama's position on Iraq and national security.
Call Star reporter Francesca Jarosz at (317) 444-6310.
Had a fellow parishioner accost me this morning with, "How about that Palin? She's the greatest. What took you women so damned long to get someone so great running for high office?" It was shocking to me that he was trying to pick a fight just before church. If he hadn't been so elderly, I might've given him one, though.
The right-wing echo chamber was caught flat-footed by the VP choice, but they've wasted no time coming up with talking points for the dittoheads to repeat whenever challenged. My fellow Christian got the idea somewhere that this woman was a feminist's dream come true. Oy, veh! Perhaps Alzheimer's disease has destroyed his memories of Shirley Chisolm, Geraldine Ferraro, and (already!) of Hillary Clinton (whom Palin called a whiner during the primaries for objecting to sexist treatment by the press).
Old Al is convinced that Palin is a great woman, whose beauty is an actual asset in politics, and whose less than two years as governor of a state less populous than Milwaukee qualifies her for any position the US can offer her. Oy vey some more.
I can't blame the GOP for getting desperate. I can't be surprised by their cynicism anymore. I can't fault their use of the news cycle. But I would rather have had Danny Quayle in the White House than a woman who laughs at nasty jokes about a colleague who is a cancer survivor.
I also have deep qualms about Palin's possible abuse of executive power being investigated by the Alaska legislature. All we need is more abuse of executive power in the White House!
There are already several YouTube videos testifying to young Republicans' desire to vote with their penises ("Putting C%ntry First"?), which shouldn't surprise anyone, but this beauty queen's air-headed dismissal of the need to really understand what a Vice President does all day is really scary.
Also scary, given John McCain's age and health problems, is Mrs. Palin's Fundamentalism. This entails a position against a woman's Constitutionally-protected right to choose to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
I'm a faithful Episcopalian who knows history well enough to know that legislating morality doesn't work. A return to pre-Roe vs Wade laws won't decrease abortions - it will increase back-alley and coat-hanger abortions. Still more frightening for those who want every child to be a wanted child is the Religious Right's turn toward blocking access even to contraception.
One wonders whether the rumors that Palin's youngest daughter is actually her grand-daughter might reflect a family where birth control was not discussed except in negative light. If, as may be, that rumor proves as true as the John Edwards tabloid story, Palin's abbreviated vetting will blow back and McCain's campaign will be toast. Then it'll be me asking my fellow parishioner, "How about that Palin?"
Aside from telling the truth about Barack Obama, there is another way to counter the lies being told by Jerome Corsi - taking his book out of the library!
No, I am not talking about destroying books, BUT, if supporters of the O just happen to borrow the book from the library it will not be there for others to borrow. Of course there is always the chance that some of us friends of the O will find it amusing reading, and perhaps give us first hand knowledge of the depths some people will stoop.
Oh puh-LEEEEEZ!
McCain and his campaign have started baying like bloodhounds about Obama making passing reference to the racist smears circulating about him. "He played the race card! Now we can too!" They had 6 commercials in the can, just waiting for the day they could finally find an excuse.
But, Lord, please spare me any of McCain's protestations that Obama was the one who brought up the subject. Whose talking points for the last two weeks have been accusations of 'presumption' and 'audacity' (code for 'uppity'? you betcha! this white woman knows code-speak when she hears it).
Still, Barack is smart enough to know that McCain can distance himself from the nasty viral emails. Aren't we all just waiting for Barack to call him on that shit?
Here's the script, Senator Obama - next time you're in front of a Midwestern, working-class white audience, you just bring it right out. You hold up the photo of your family in African traditional dress and say:
"This is my family, and I'm as proud of them as I can be. But maybe you've seen the outrageously racist emails sent out with this photo by McCain's supporters. Maybe you've even gotten one of those emails. Have you even once heard McCain acknowledge that these emails are racist and sleazy? Have you ever heard him denounce them, and tell his supporters they aren't doing him any favors promulgating racist lies? Well, either he approves of them or he wants to pretend he doesn't know about them. Now that he does know about them, will he denounce them and repudiate the lies in them? And if he's really not aware this is happening, what kind of president will John McCain make?"
Those are good questions, Senator. I don't think anyone would blame you for asking them, and I'd love to see McCain's response.
Lots in the news about Obama in Afghanistan. My favorite quote, tho, is from John McCain, who said (get this!), "Apparently, he's confident enough that he won't find any facts that might change his opinion or alter his strategy -- remarkable."
Remarkable, coming from a guy whose visit to Iraq was marked by a severe tendency to see exactly the safe, calm place he expected to see, ignoring the swarms of expensive protective personnel required to sustain his delusion.
I don't expect Obama to come back from Afghanistan with a drastically different policy proposal. I'm just glad he went there. And got perspectives from troops, commanders, and indigenous leadership.
Because, more and more, it's looking like the USA the next president inherits will be in such crisis that any proposals made now will be obsolete by the inauguration ceremony. The crisis is decades in the making, and will take almost that long to address.
And because it's looking like the Dems will be the ones who have to deal with this mess, I want the guy leading the Dems to be the sort of guy who goes there, and talks to folks.
Enacting sweeping, expensive programs inside the Beltway with the input of only a tight circle of like-minded, class-protective cronies (can you say 'TSA'?) is not going to get us out of this hole we're in.
Read what many evangelical ministers are saying in opposition to Dobson and see Dobson's allegations against what Obama has said. http://www.jamesdobsondoesntspeakforme.com/
I found a brilliant website called James Dobson Doesn't Speak For Me :
http://www.jamesdobsondoesntspeakforme.com./
The site was created by a coalition of pastors and other Christians, lead by Pastor Kirbyjon Caldwell who are standing up for our Christian faith and supporting Barack Obama. They are signing in their individual capacities and not on behalf of their churches or denominations.
The site includes several of Dobson's soundbytes as well as the facts surrounding his statements. It is a great resource for anyone who supports Barack Obama.
"All over the world people who have thought ill of America are now thinking better of us, simply because Obama has become a serious major party candidate. All over the world our country, which has sunk to its lowest level ever in the public's view under Bush, suddenly looks immeasurably better because we have grown up enough to embrace a black candidate, our fraught and sordid racial history notwithstanding. We might even be setting an example in spite of ourselves. All over the world people who have despaired of their old friend America are taking a second look.
In our own country millions of new voters, especially young voters, are coming into the political process that before Obama, they had either ignored or written off. And the African-American population that has been the victim of the racism which has dragged on and on relentlessly, is taking a deep breath and considering a new future.
Senator Obama is not just a "historic black candidate." He turns out to be a profoundly inspirational person. For a start he is not beating the drum for fear as the means to motivate votes. This is a huge change from Bush and the paranoid distrust of the "other" that the Bush years will be remembered for. There are echoes of Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt in the measured and sane Obama candidacy. There is the best of the American story in his personal history. The man radiates a steady decency, compassion and profound wisdom that is rare at any time in politics, but following the embarrassment of George W. Bush comes like cold water to those stuck in an interminable desert.
This is the context of the Obama candidacy. And what it symbolizes long-term is so far and away more important than the election results in November, that the mere politics of the moment is almost an insult to the sea change that Obama's candidacy represents.
If the world gets it, if Obama inspires the French, the British, the Egyptians, the Germans, the Indonesians, the Irish, even the Chinese, but Republican operatives and strategists don't "get it," then I make this prophecy: the Republican Party will look so small and yes, so pathetically racist, that by the end of the day we will barely have a two-party system left in America. No one will forgive the Republicans (or angry Clinton Democrats) if they come out of this moment looking as if they missed the point of what America means.
The Republicans are going to look as out of touch a few years from now as did the isolationists and "America First" folks after World War II. Before the war they were active in the prewar run up and they seemed very much in the game, even relevant. But the isolationists didn't understand the fact that the world had changed and left them and their interests stranded. The globe was smaller than they figured and they marginalized themselves. Forces beyond their political control were unleashed on them. And by the end of World War II the entire world map was redrawn. There was no room left for them on the political map either. They went from serious to joke status in a heartbeat.
That's the fate that awaits the Republicans today if they persist in trivializing Obama. As they prepare their slimy little Rovian attacks on Michelle Obama, and her "lack of patriotism," on Senator Obama and his "un-American" former pastor, and as the racial innuendo and the use of Obama's middle name, etc., etc., morphs into an updated version of "swift boating" the Republicans are more or less signing their death warrant. They are about to become a minority party perceived as controlled by silly half-educated white men, cranks, racists and windbags. The writing is on the wall. If fools like the FOX News folks, are the face of the Republican Party in this election the Republicans are done. It will not be forgotten that the Republicans pissed on a shining moment of opportunity and could do no better than snicker at a moment when the rest of the world looked at the Obama moment in awe and renewed respect for America. Obama changes everything. Those who understand this and embrace the facts may live to fight another day in whatever political party. Those who don't -- be they Republicans or Hillary Clinton's disappointed and angry Democrats -- instantly make themselves part of a past that will never be escaped or lived down."http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/a-warning-to-my-old-repub_b_106676.html There's much more--please read the entire article.
Jill G. posted the following item to the Palm Beach Obama Supporters email group.
It's a GREAT piece. Spread the word to women everywhere!
********************************
McCain Opposed Equal Pay Bill for Women, Said They 'Need Education and Training' Instead. McCain skipped a vote on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act that would ensure women have the opportunity to recover back pay for discrimination once they discover it. If he had been there to vote, he said he would have voted against it and that women "need education and training" rather than an equal pay bill. The bill addressed a recent Supreme Court decision that said Steelworker Lilly Ledbetter could not recover back pay for 19 years of discrimination at Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. because she had not discovered the unequal pay until she retired. The bill would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to allow employees to file charges of pay discrimination within 180 days of the last received paycheck affected by the discrimination. [Source: aflcio.org; H.R. 2831, Vote 110, 4/23/08; Associated Press, 4/28/08]
McCain Voted to Gut the Family and Medical Leave Act. In 1993, before finally voting for the Family and Medical Leave Act, McCain voted to jeopardize leave for millions of workers by gutting the bill. He voted to suspend the Family and Medical Leave Act unless the federal government certified that compliance would not increase business expenses or provide financial assistance to businesses to cover any related costs. [Source: aflcio.org S.Amdt. 16, S. 5, Vote 7, 2/4/93; H.R. 1, Vote 11, 2/4/93]Source for the following information: Planned Parenthood McCain opposed spending $100 million to prevent unintended and teen pregnancies. In 2005, McCain voted NO to allocate $100 million to expand access to preventive health care services that reduce the numbers of unintended and teen pregnancies and reduce the number of abortions.McCain opposed legislation requiring that abstinence-only programs be medically accurate and scientifically based.McCain voted NO on legislation that would help reduce the number of teen pregnancies by providing funding for programs to teach comprehensive, medically accurate sexuality education and other programs to prevent unintended teen pregnancies.McCain opposed Title X, the nation's family planning program.In 1990, McCain voted NO on legislation to extend the Title X federal family planning program, which provides low-income and uninsured women and families with health care services ranging from breast and cervical cancer screening to birth control.McCain opposed requiring insurance coverage of prescription birth control.In 2003, McCain voted NO on legislation to improve the availability of contraceptives for women and to require insurance coverage of prescription birth control.McCain opposes comprehensive sex education.In an interview aboard the "Straight Talk Express," McCain struggled to answer questions about comprehensive sex education and HIV prevention. He also stated that he supported "the president's policy" on sex education.McCain unsure where he stands on government funding for contraception."Whether I support government funding for them or not, I don't know," McCain said about contraceptives.McCain opposed repealing the "global gag rule."In 2005, McCain voted NO on legislation to overturn the "global gag rule," which bars foreign nongovernmental organizations from receiving U.S. family planning assistance if the organization (using its own, non-U.S. funds) provides abortion services or information or advocates for pro-choice laws and policies in its own country.McCain supports overturning Roe v. Wade.In February 2007, the AP quoted McCain stating, "I do not support Roe v. Wade. It should be overturned." In May 2007, he reiterated his desire to overturn Roe v. Wade during an appearance on Meet the Press stating, "My position has been consistently in my voting record, pro-life, and I continue to maintain that position and voting record."
Barack Obama at AIPAC
To thunderous repetitive peals of applause by 7,000 gathered attendees at the American Israel Political Affairs Committee Annual Policy Conference in Washington, D.C., Barack Obama today transformed himself in the minds of many doubting Jews and security-minded conservatives.
With unmistakable clarity, Obama stepped out of his haze as a questionable figure and stepping into the limelight as a stalwart in the American/Israel relationship and in the campaign to disarm the Iranian nuclear threat.
With riveting command of the issues, Obama checked off every conceivable question in the minds of Jewish and conservative listeners and showed himself to be knowledgeable and formidable. From no negotiation with Hamas as a terrorist entity, to a personal commitment to the return of captured Israeli soldiers, to the quest for bi-national peace between Israel and Palestinians, Barack drew standing ovations. The ovations were loudest as Obama proclaimed his vision for America’s steadfastness in the looming nuclear stalemate and confrontation with Iran.
Setting aside his prepared remarks and speaking with crystal clarity, Obama declared loudly over the applause, “I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything in my power. Everything.”
Moments later, Obama put Iran on strict notice declaring that while he favors tough diplomacy, sometimes military confrontation is unavoidable. “Sometimes there are no alternatives to confrontation,” he said, “But that only makes diplomacy more important. If we must use military force, we are more likely to succeed, and will have far greater support at home and abroad if we have exhausted our diplomatic efforts.”
Obama also showed a keen understanding of the Holocaust and its place in contemporary world history and Israel’s national mindset, thus righting erroneous misstatements he had uttered in recent days about American soldiers liberating Auschwitz. The death camp in occupied Poland was liberated by Russians in April 1945 not Americans who were fast closing in on Berlin.
Turning to Black/Jewish relations—strained and battered over recent years as anti-Semitism became vogue in the African-American community and the roiling Southside Chicago’s neighborhoods that became Obama’s base—the presumptive Democratic candidate called out for a revival of the longtime alliance that saw Jews in the bloodied front line of the civil rights struggle.
“There is a commitment,” Obama reminded, “embedded in the Jewish faith and tradition: to freedom and fairness; to social justice and equal opportunity. To tikkun olam – the obligation to repair this world.”
Making it personal, Obama continued, “I will never forget that I would not be standing here today if it weren’t for that commitment. In the great social movements in our country’s history, Jewish and African Americans have stood shoulder to shoulder. They took buses down south together. They marched together. They bled together. And Jewish Americans like Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner were willing to die alongside a black man – James Chaney – on behalf of freedom and equality.”
Obama was referring to two young Jewish civil rights workers, Goodman and Schwerner, as well as Black civil rights worker Chaney, all brutally murdered by the Ku Klux Klan in Mississippi during the legendary Freedom Summer of 1964.
Obama asserted, “Their legacy is our inheritance. We must not allow the relationship between Jews and African Americans to suffer. This is a bond that must be strengthened. Together, we can rededicate ourselves to end prejudice and combat hatred in all of its forms. Together, we can renew our commitment to justice. Together, we can join our voices together, and in doing so make even the mightiest of walls fall down.”
Derogatory e-mails have been haunting the Obama campaign since the outset, so much so that he began his AIPAC speech by telling listeners he would tackle them on the spot. “Before I begin,” Obama stated, “I want to say that I know some provocative e-mails have been circulating throughout Jewish communities across the country. A few of you may have gotten them. They’re filled with tall tales and dire warnings about a certain candidate for President. And all I want to say is – let me know if you see this guy named Barack Obama, because he sounds pretty frightening.”
Far from frightening, the new Obama proved nothing short of amazing to many who had known nothing more of him than his thin past, a past linked very closely to such clerical hatemongers as Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, Trinity United Pastor Jeremiah Wright and Catholic priest Michael Pfleger. The new Obama is one that seems to have been profoundly educated, toughened, and seasoned by a grueling primary against Hillary Clinton. To many he must have seemed like a man ready to leave his streetwise Southside Chicago and assume the mentality of a world leader. New e-mails of astonishment and support of Obama quickly began burning through the Internet, many from the ranks of former Obama rejectionists.
The Obama speech was the highlight of a remarkable American political event, the largest and most distinguished political assemblage in AIPAC’s history. Republican presidential candidate John McCain spoke earlier in the week when the conference opened. Today, in a star-studded turning point morning, Obama was preceded by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and followed presidential contender Hillary Clinton. Still aflame with enthusiasm, Clinton’s speech made no reference to further presidential ambition, and indeed repeatedly offered accolades to Obama. At one point she declared, “Let me be very clear, I know that Senator Obama will be a good friend to Israel.”
For many, that question is being viewed in a newer and more positive light.
Oh, there is such a thing as bad publicity
Just a few months after Barack Obama announced his intention to seek the Democratic nomination for president, Mars, Inc. launched a campaign to remake the image of its iconic Uncle Ben, the face of the Uncle Ben's brand. The rebranding, which elevated the character from smiling servant to a worldly business executive, was clearly intended to blunt criticism the company has faced over the years that the 1940s character portrays a derogatory stereotype. The reinvention was meant to modernize and personalize the brand in a way that was respectful of his African American heritage and provided a unifying umbrella for new and well-established products. Unfortunately for Uncle Ben's and its parent Mars, some multicultural-marketing observers saw it differently. They viewed it as patronizing treatment of a symbol associated with repression and slavery. The estimated $20 million Web and print campaign recast Uncle Ben as the wealthy head of a fictional rice company. The site's landing page, by TEQUILA, a division of tbwaChiatDay, became Uncle Ben's wood-paneled executive office, where users could read his newspaper, look at his e-mail and peruse his journal. Left intact was his trademark bow tie - and the moniker "Uncle," a frequent target of critics.The new Ben, unveiled in April 2007, aimed to realign some long-held perceptions about the character. It didn't quite go over that way - at least not without a few hitches.Parboiled BacklashThe March 30 announcement of Ben's "promotion" on the Web site caught the attention of the mainstream and spread throughout the blogosphere. That day, The New York Times ran an article about the launch, headlined "Uncle Ben, Board Chairman," and National Public Radio reported on mixed reviews from multicultural marketing specialists. On Comedy Central's The Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert quipped, "Now that you are a big shot, Uncle Ben, you're going to need your own private chef. I recommend the Cream of Wheat guy."Carmen Van Kerckhove, co-founder of firm New Demographic - tagline: "Better than diversity training" - wrote on her blog, racialicious.com: "This rebranding campaign is really the epitome of putting lipstick on a pig. Uncle Ben is still grinning and wearing a bow tie. There's nothing Chairman of the Board-esque about that image. Uncle Ben still has no last name. When's the last time you heard a powerful man referred to by his first name? No matter what fantasies you weave about him being the Chairman of the Board, his very name still comes from the culture of slavery." A few weeks later, David Segal, a Washington Post Style section writer, posted in Slate, "What's amazing about this Uncle Ben is that he still has a job at all. Uncle Ben is a rare survivor in the once-crowded world of racist spokescharacters. Most of his contemporaries were fired a long time ago." Just after that, interactive agency Organic's Daniel Turman wrote on the company's blog, threeminds.com, "This strategy might have worked better if there was some substance behind the smoke and mirrors. He still is called 'Uncle' in spite of the fact that this title was a Jim Crow-ism used to avoid the use of the honorarium Mister? Really!? By refusing to own up to the divisiveness of the character, the [campaign] falls flat." The initial response from the company was sort of underwhelming. According to Mars, the Ben icon comes from American folklore - stories of a legendary farmer known for his quality rice. When farmers went to market, they would claim their rice was "as good as Uncle Ben's." The portrait of Uncle Ben was introduced in 1947, and it's said that it's the likeness of Chicago chef and maitre d' Frank Brown, who died in 1953.But still, some say this explanation comes off as laughably tone-deaf. How could a group of sophisticated marketers have been blind to the backlash, which seems somehow inevitable? Howard Buford, founder and CEO of multicultural ad agency Prime Access, says, "Over time, the Uncle Ben character had gone from a concrete person to an abstract logo, which had lessened its racial baggage." Mars' move to personalize Ben partially backfired and just reminded people of the logo's history, just as media coverage began to focus on the possibility of electing the United States' first black president. "This was not the time to call attention to that problem," Buford says.Proof Is in the (Rice) PuddingThe controversy seemed to increase consumer interest in the brand: Traffic to the site soared during the summer of 2007 as criticism and online discussion peaked. Unique visits ballooned 1,800 percent, from 191,000 in the third quarter of 2006 to 3.6 million in the same period of 2007, per comScore. Mars uses BuzzMetrics to track brand references on blogs, communities and news sites. Tracking showed that in the month after the launch, the Uncle Ben's brand got more online attention than it has ever experienced, and ended up with three times as much "buzz" as its biggest competitors, says Bryan Crowley, vice president of marketing and sales for Mars Food U.S.The concept of a virtual office gave consumers a way to interact with the character's world, says Austin Hurwitz, TEQUILA management supervisor. "The office setting allowed us to talk about products, offer nutrition facts about rice, showcase recipes and describe the company's philanthropic efforts to end hunger - all in one unified setting," he says. Ads by tbwaChiatDay in celebrity, women's, food and African American magazines focused on Ben as chairman of the board and drove traffic to the site. But Web traffic does not equal brand loyalty or sales (or votes - just ask Ron Paul). So, did the move score for Mars? Crowley says yes. Since the campaign broke, growth in sales and market share has accelerated, he says. And according to Information Resources Inc., sales have indeed swelled in some sectors: The brand's biggest product category, dry rice, showed sales growth of 6 percent in 2007 compared to 2006, per IRI. The year before, sales growth was 4 percent. Sales of ready-to-eat rice mixes, which are about one-seventh the dollar volume of dry rice, rose 8 percent in 2007 compared to 2006, per IRI. But that's less impressive than the year before. Ready-to-eat rice sales in 2006 showed a 21 percent rise compared to the previous year. "We respect the views of the critics and we want to keep open the lines of communication with them," Crowley says. "We also understand that for many people in our target market, the Uncle Ben character stands for trust and quality. Both of those viewpoints are important, and we are working with advisors to figure out how to strike a balance." Mars started conducting research about the Uncle Ben's brand at least 18 months before the campaign's launch, around January 2006. The mission was to "find a big idea that could tie the content of the site together and bring the brand experience to life," says TEQUILA's Hurwitz. Research identified the target as 35- to 54-year-old mothers who are devoted to their home environment, have attended college, are avid readers and are interested in health, Crowley says. About 80 percent are white and most of the remaining 20 percent are African American, plus a small percentage of Hispanics and Asians. "Focus groups, one-to-one meetings and other qualitative research uncovered that consumers had a tremendous amount of respect for the Uncle Ben icon and that he represented quality, trust and family," Crowley says. "To leverage the respect and values of the brand, we decided to present Ben as chairman of the company and use him as the center of the marketing." The campaign itself was in development for about seven months, starting in the fall of 2006, before the launch hit and the brouhaha began. By October 2007, the Web site's traffic dropped almost to normal levels, but not quite. While the site saw 3.6 million unique visits from July to September 2007, it attracted only 114,000 uniques from October to December, according to comScore - but that was still almost double the visits during the same period the year before. In the last several months, the company scrapped some of the plans for the site that were touted at the launch. Gone are plans to further personalize Ben with voicemail messages from him and a full-length picture of him in a business suit. (Only his portrait is currently used on the site and in the ads.) Since tracking shows most visitors use the site to find recipes, the company is expanding that content and tweaking the landing page to give direct links to recipes, Crowley says. Hurwitz says the recipe section continues to get about 20,000 visitors a month and average three minutes per visit. Crowley declines to say if any of the changes are related to the criticism. Dust, CautionThere are no easy answers here. Possibly the best solution is to dissolve the brand, eliminating the inflammatory iconography. Of course, this is a catch-22, so the task became a salvage job. Industry experts find the eventual campaign's costs and benefits complicated."The admirable part of this effort is that they generated Web traffic and attention to the brand, and the company looks like it is trying to be positive and proactive," says Larry Vincent, group director of strategy, Siegel+Gale. But he questions the wisdom of using such a strategy to shake the dust off an antiquated image. To change the backstory of Uncle Ben "is a risky branding move even without the race issue. It is difficult to reinvent history in a way that is different than what consumers perceive. When a brand pulls an about-face, people subconsciously get the feeling [that] it is trying to pull the wool over their eyes," he says.Some multicultural marketing experts were hoping for more of a response from the rice company. "I'm flabbergasted that they didn't change the existing site after the press criticism," says Luke Visconti, partner and co-founder, DiversityInc Media. That shows the failure of the company "to have respect for American history. Since launch, Obama has hit the scene, uniting the political and racial discourse," says Visconti. "For Mars to be so recalcitrant at this point seems blockheaded; it does not reflect the audience's mood," he says. Ron Campbell, president and chief strategist, Campbell-Communications, which specializes in multicultural marketing strategies, is more blunt: "It is a marketing faux pas that is paternalistic and condescending. It's like something out of Mad magazine." But so far the backlash seems to be mainly from "gatekeepers," says Campbell. Whether the decision to focus on Ben turns out to be "a big branding mistake and a big revenue mistake depends how much the noise from the gatekeepers reaches consumers who buy the rice because they need a quick meal for their families," he says. If Mars' objective was to get exposure, it was a good move to be bold, rather than changing the icon subtly over time, as the Quaker Oats Company has done with its Aunt Jemima brand, says branding expert Vincent. But with "online social media and the rumor mills, criticism of a brand can take on a life of its own," he warns. In exchange for an incremental lift in sales, Mars could be harming the brand's reputation and permanently relegating its rice to a commodity product, he says, echoing other experts.Crowley won't admit to a downside. The company is "thrilled with the results of the campaign and considers it to be working well," he says. Perhaps a more telling question is whether Uncle Ben - the icon and the chairman - will keep his bow tie. "Yes," says Crowley. "The bow tie stays."
http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=79730
